This inquiry was originally opened in 2019 to investigate “fake news” and “digital militias”, and it is illegal.
- In Brazil, a judge cannot open an inquiry. This falls under the responsibility of the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) or the judiciary police. Yet, Inquiry 4874 was opened by the Supreme Court.
- You can’t simultaneously be the victim, judge and prosecutor in a case. Still, this is the situation in Inquiry 4874, where a Supreme Court justice prosecutes and judges supposed crimes committed against the Supreme Court.
- Defense attorneys must be given full access to case files. This has not happened in Inquiry 4874.
- The Brazilian attorney general in 2019 has determined the inquiry to be abandoned due to it being unconstitutional. While the Brazilian constitution says that the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) conducts investigations and determines their end, this determination was ignored by the Supreme Court.
- The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”.
- Inquiry 4874 does not investigate any specific fact. It was opened to investigate “fake news, slanderous denunciations and infractions covered by animus calumniandi, diffamandi e injuriandi affecting the honor and security of the Supreme Court, its members and their families”. No act or crime is specified, so the inquiry is a wildcard that can be (and is) used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the court.
- The Brazilian constitution specifies that the Supreme Court can only judge those with “privileged jurisdiction” (the president, vice-president, cabinet members, senators, congressmen, etc). However, Inquiry 4879 has judged and convicted many people who do not fall under that special jurisdiction.
- In Brazil you cannot choose a judge according to your preferences. In the Supreme Court, one must be selected at random, according to the court’s internal regiment. This has not happened in Inquiry 4879, as justice Dias Toffoli specifically chose justice Alexandre de Moraes to handle the investigation.
The irregularities above have turned the Brazilian Supreme Court into a kangaroo court.
Brazil is no longer a democracy.
You told a lot of fake things, so I'll just point out the first obvious thing:
> In Brazil, a judge cannot open an inquiry.
That's false. You can open an inquiry, if is an attack against the Supreme Court itself.
Article 43. In the event of a criminal offense at the headquarters or branch of the Court, the President shall initiate an inquiry if it involves an authority or person subject to its jurisdiction, or delegate this task to another Minister.
You should work on your reading comprehension. I will quote myself:
> - The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”.
Does “the headquarters or branch of the Court” include X?
"the headquarters or branch of the Court" happens when someone attacks the Supreme Court, especially as what happened in January 8 when they destroyed the place trying on a coup attempt.
The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it.
Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the actions of an out of control judge within the premises of the Supreme Court? Has Elon Musk ever been in the Brazilian Supreme Court?
The Brazilian Supreme Court maintains that the whole internet is within their premises. Be honest, do you think this is reasonable?
The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet.
The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
> The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court.
What the heck is a “virtual attack”?
Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet.
Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service.
Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
It's the Supreme Court that gives interpretation to Constitution, you that right?
Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.
Thank you for this comment.